lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/8] modsign: Allow password to be specified for signing key
On 15-05-19 17:15:12, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 18:50 +0300, Petko Manolov wrote:
> > On 15-05-19 15:45:58, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > We don't want this in the Kconfig since it might then get exposed in
> > > /proc/config.gz. So make it a parameter to Kbuild instead. This also
> > > means we don't have to jump through hoops to strip quotes from it, as
> > > we would if it was a config option.
> >
> > If it were on a network-less, secure sign/build server i'd say it is OK.
> >
> > However, exposing your private key's password in an environment variable on a
> > regular Linux box is a bit fishy.
>
> I don't quite understand the objection.
>
> If you want the modules to be signed with an external key of your
> choice, then for the duration of the 'make modules_sign' run (or 'make
> modules_install if CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_ALL=y) surely the password has to
> be available *somehow*?
>
> You are, of course, free to sign the modules by invoking sign-file
> directly. In which case you *still* need to provide it with the password
> for the key somehow, if there is one.
>
> Mimi quite rightly pointed out that my original mechanism for this, a
> CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY_PASSWORD option, was inadvertently exposing it
> more than was necessary.
>
> As it is now, you *only* need it in the environment for the duration of
> the operations that actually *use* it.

As with everything there is bad and good side to your proposal.

bad:
- password in environment variable _could_ be very dangerous;
- someone is bound to misuse this feature sooner or later;

good:
- the actual risk is mitigated as the key is very short-lived;
- the feature is going to be used by a small number of people;
- does not break automated builds, maybe;
- there is an alternative for those who want more secure approach;

> Do you have a better suggestion?

*better* is a matter of prospective. Security and convenience are at the wrong
side of the spectrum relative to each other. :)

Don't get me wrong, your patch is perhaps the lesser evil. I just wanted to
bring up my concerns.


cheers,
Petko


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-19 19:21    [W:0.122 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site